Chamber and committees

Body-worn video footage can be an essential part of a prosecution: providing a rich source of real evidence including exculpatory evidence. Provided promptly, such footage can:

• enable prosecutors to make an informed marking decision
• facilitate the early resolution of a case
• support an effective prosecution

Considerable work being undertaken within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to measure and monitor impact the impact of submission of BWV footage on both operational processes and prosecution decisions.

Officials from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are working closely with colleagues from the Police Service of Scotland to ensure that the body-worn video footage submitted to prosecutors supports and does not detract from these aims.

Officials within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have prepared detailed policy and process documents to assist staff across the service, including those involved in custody hearings and early case processing, dealing with body-worn video footage. These documents are being supported by extensive training which highlights:

• The need to take a trauma informed approach to the use of body-worn video
• The evidential value of body-worn video
• The sensitive nature of body-worn video and its implications for disclosure and redaction.
• The need for prompt disclosure and early engagement with the accused and their legal representative.

The introduction of body-worn video footage by the Police Service of Scotland is a significant development and has the potential to bring enormous benefits to the criminal justice system and beyond.

Body-worn video provided promptly can enable prosecutors to take informed initial marking decisions by providing them with not only evidence of offending, but an insight into the nature of the offending behaviour, and its impact on individuals involved.

Considerable work is being undertaken within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to measure and monitor impact the impact of submission of BWV footage on both operational processes and prosecution decisions.

This monitoring will inform resource allocation within the service and any future funding requirements.

Discussions with the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) have confirmed that the organisation welcomes Police Scotland’s roll out of body-worn cameras (BWC). BWC will provide valuable and incontrovertible evidence which will assist PIRC to undertake its statutory functions of investigations and complaint handling reviews, which contribute to upholding public confidence in policing in Scotland.

Police Scotland commenced its roll out of BWC on 26 March 2025, and use of BWC recorded footage is an operational matter for PIRC. Any additional operational requirements will be considered by PIRC, as this new technology is fully rolled out.

This question relates to operational matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunals Service (SCTS) corporate body. The question has been passed to the Chief Executive of the SCTS who reply in writing within 20 days.

This question relates to operational matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunals Service (SCTS) corporate body. The question has been passed to the Chief Executive of the SCTS who reply in writing within 20 days.

This question relates to operational matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunals Service (SCTS) corporate body. The question has been passed to the Chief Executive of the SCTS who reply in writing within 20 days.

While the Scottish Government has overall responsibility for health and social care policy in Scotland, it is for Health and Social Care Partnerships to ensure that support services are in place to provide people with the appropriate support in the right place and at the right time. Decisions on how best to deliver services to local communities, are ultimately for local partners to make.

We continue to protect and prioritise additional investment into social care, despite an extremely challenging Budget settlement. This includes almost £2.2 billion for social care and integration – exceeding our commitment to increase funding by 25% by almost £350 million.

We would encourage all partners to work together to find solutions that put the needs of local people and those impacted by the decision, particularly those who are most vulnerable, at the centre.

The Scottish Government was concerned to hear about the withdrawal of funding from the Notre Dame Centre. We recognise that the potential closure of the Centre as a result will be causing concern for the children and families that use its services. Scottish Government officials have received assurances from the Integrated Joint Board that alternative services will be available and transition plans put in place for those currently using the services provided by the Centre.

Although it is for the IJB to make decisions about the local provision of services they fund, we expect these decisions to be made in consultation with the communities in which they are based. The Scottish Government also expects the IJB to consider the impact this may have on those that use the Centre, particularly vulnerable users, and on other services which may be asked to step in.

There are multiple routes by which a child may be referred to secure accommodation. The head of each centre retains discretion over whether or not to accept any individual child’s placement.

If a placement is required, and secure accommodation capacity is reached, then all appropriate and safe alternatives will be considered by the relevant decision makers. They will ensure that the bests interests of each child are prioritised and that any risks are managed appropriately to protect each child and the community. The Scottish Government will assist in every appropriate way.

Where a children’s hearing includes a secure accommodation authorisation in their decision, the hearing also needs to decide where a child is to be placed if, for any reason, their secure authorisation cannot be implemented. This may be because of the professional judgement of the chief social work officer or the head of the relevant secure centre, or for other reasons.

An alternative to secure care should therefore have been prepared by the local authority and authorised by the hearing. This position, and its requirements, are unaffected by questions of capacity.

Where a child is remanded by the court to the care of the local authority and a secure place is not available, an alternative place of safety must be identified until a bed becomes available.

Refreshed guidance on community alternatives to the deprivation of liberty for children was published in March. This guidance highlights the importance of exploring alternatives that prioritise children’s rights and welfare, ensuring that secure accommodation is only ever used when absolutely necessary.

Recognising the complexities and demands and pressures this can bring to bear for professionals. The Scottish Government have agreed to fund a dedicated professional secure care lead at Social Work Scotland for the next 12 months.